Navigate:

W.H. escalates budget war with Hill GOP

The two appropriations panels have begun writing their 2013 bills. | Reuters

“The resolution’s framework allows only two options,” he writes, “every appropriations bill will provide inadequate funding, or some bills will provide adequate funding so that other bills will face even deeper, more problematic cuts.”

“Both approaches break last summer’s agreement, and neither is acceptable.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

In fact, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) — to whom the letter was most directly addressed — had long argued against any tampering with the August deal. But politically it was judged necessary by Boehner to secure the votes of tea party conservatives, who otherwise would have opposed the budget resolution.

Trying to make the best of a bad situation, Rogers has since begun moving his first bills while trying to avoid dramatic cuts. But this is the sort of piecemeal approach that clearly worries the administration and one reason apparently that Zients opted to engage now rather than later.

A spokeswoman for Rogers dismissed the letter as a “hollow press release in the guise of ‘official’ correspondence.”

“When appropriations bills pass both the House and the Senate, the president can choose to sign them,” said Jennifer Hing, “or else he can choose to shut down the federal government, put our people at risk and imperil our economic recovery.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, an Obama ally, was conspicuously quiet as well, and the Hawaii Democrat is to hold his first full committee meeting Thursday marking up two bills and also spelling out how he would allocate the full discretionary sums allowed under the August deal.

There is a natural tension between committee chairmen — like himself and Rogers — both wanting to complete their bills, and Obama, who enjoys conflict more and the narrative of him matched against an unpopular Congress.

But the January threat of an automatic spending sequester — dictated by the Budget Control Act — is real. And the same “do-nothing” Congress and whoever is president must also decide then the future of Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at the same time.

In designing the sequester machinery last summer, the White House had this linkage in mind. And Obama insisted on the deep defense cuts in hopes of forcing Republicans to show more flexibility in accepting significant new revenues as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with the growing federal debt.

It was always a gamble and one that’s yielded disappointing results thus far, as seen in the failed debt talks last fall. But in moving now to substitute domestic spending cuts of this level, the House Republicans are going against the spirit of last August and trying to dramatically shift the balance back in their favor.

“This was the law. This was what we voted upon. This is what we signed,” complained Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.). “Here we are reshuffling the deck as if we never passed this law.”

“The Constitution is pretty clear that national defense is something the federal government should provide for and we ought to do it well,” answered Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) in the agriculture debate on food stamps. “I’m not so sure that the Constitution says that many of the other areas that we’re talking about today have that same priority for the federal government.”

But most telling may have been the interaction between Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), clearly unhappy with the task at hand, and his ranking Democrat and former chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota.

“You can’t have a serious conversation about getting the budget under control when you take large items like defense off the table, which is really why we are here,” Peterson said. “Taking a meat-ax to nutrition programs that feed millions of working families in this country in order to avoid defense cuts is not a serious way to achieve deficit reduction. It’s no wonder nobody likes Congress.”

Peterson went on to suggest the whole budget process had deteriorated to a point where that committee should be cut itself. Lucas offered no rebuttal, just saying Peterson’s comments were “always insightful.”

I can't understand why Republicans won't cut Defense. Our Dept of Defense is massively bloated and constantly overspending and loosing money. They have roughly half the Federal workforce, who we will pay benefits and retirements for for their lifetimes. We are not serious about cutting the budget unless we cut Defense.

Obama won't sign it because the GOP is backing out of the deal they signed last summer - remember when the GOP held the whole country hostage and forced a downgrade of our credit rating? The budget deal that finally came out of that was gleefully signed off by the GOP - remember Boehner crowing that they got 98% of what they asked for? Yeah - that deal.

Now, the GOP wants to throw all that effort under the bus and move to a totally new budget with ZERO cuts for defense, which throws ALL of the cuts onto "discretionary spending." What does that mean? It means they are going to butcher your EARNED benefits of unemployment, Medicare and Social Security as well as programs like food stamps that help women and children and agencies such as the EPA that protect consumers from corporate shennigans. This is the classic "your're on your own" strategy of the GOP to abolish business regulation, continue to grow the military so we can mount another war or two, and throw women, families, the disadvantaged and the elderly under the bus.

Who does the GOP think they are kidding? If you sign a deal you have to live with it - unless of course your are GOP congressmen. Obama and every "real" American should be furious with the GOP congress.

Obama won't sign it because the GOP is backing out of the deal they signed last summer.

Eliminating the “czar” funding was also part of the deal to which Obama had agreed. After signing the agreement, Zippy declared that he is allowed to continue to use the funds in question to pay for the posts in question, saying that this section would otherwise violate his constitutional powers.

Offalama wants his cake and eat it too. He and the Dem Senate haven't passed a budget in nearly 1100 days (Constitutionally required) (Maybe they should all be arrested) The Oaf in Chief has spent this country into the toilet. Speaking of which, I think I will go get an Obama doll and send it to our senator Dickie Turban Durban.

In fact, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.)— to which the letter is most directly addressed—had argued against any tampering with the August deal. But politically it was judged necessary to secure the votes of tea party conservatives, who otherwise would have opposed the leadership-backed resolution.

No surprise that the Tea Party refuses to honor an existing agreement. The Tea Party continues to demonstrate by their selfish intransigence that they are unfit to govern.

This is much ado about nothing. There was never going to be a budget bill or appropriations anyway. There never is in a Presidential election year. They always pass a "continuing resolution" until either a lame-duck session, or until after the new Congress is sworn in. That is what happened in 2008, and it will be repeated this year.

Yet another red herring tossed out by the administration to keep your attention other than where it belongs. As already noted, this guy has absolutely NO business discussing his concern about the debt. He has proven to be totally useless in his ability to run a government. By the way, for the third (or fourth, who can remember?) year, Harry Reid and the Democratically controlled Senate have failed to present a budget, which is mandated yearly by the Constitution. Yep, over a 1000 days with Barak and Harry in charge, no budget. So please, spare me the "furious at the Republicans" garbage.

Obama won't sign it because the GOP is backing out of the deal they signed last summer - remember when the GOP held the whole country hostage and forced a downgrade of our credit rating? The budget deal that finally came out of that was gleefully signed off by the GOP - remember Boehner crowing that they got 98% of what they asked for? Yeah - that deal.

How come only now we find out the debt ceiling raising was the budget???????????????????????????????

How come we didn't have committee and sub-committee meetings????????????????????????????????????

It seems like the dems want to keep overspending $1.50 for every $1.00 of revenue and don't want to expose themselves to the light of day. It seems like there is not one responsible democrat in Washington DC.

So much for that myth! Now the truth is out there. And, like this latest "threat" by Pres. Obama regarding appropriations, there is really nothing to what he is saying. Pres Obama will not see any appropriations bills reach his desk. They will all die in the Senate and the only one that will pass will be a "Continuing Resolution".

You would think Barry Buttwipe would be a little more concerned about cleaning his own house at this time. Green energy scandals, GSA corruption, the downgrading of the Secrret Service, a failed stiumlus plan, and a Supreme Court that could cut his legacy off at the knees (or maybe his nuts) and not to mention Iran with an A-bomb, a flailling Afgan war (Offalama's "Good War" which, as Commander and Dufus he has totally f***ed up). Don't forget, he as the head of this republic, hasn't had a budget in well over a 1000 days. The list of his record is endless.

Obama, what a piece of crap! Oh, but now I am being redundant. Mmmmmm, mmmmmm, mmmmmm-Barack Hussein Offalama. The stinkiest turd ever to come out of Chicago.